June23, 2010

Madam Speaker, sexual predators, sexual deviates, sexual criminals are the most despicable of all persons in our society. We can see, maybe, why somebody steals, and maybe we can see why people use drugs, but we as a society do not understand, nor should we, why a person would sexually violate somebody else. You see, when a sex offender commits a crime against another person, in many cases, that person loses their dignity. The predator tries to destroy their humanity, tries to destroy their soul.

I spent a lot of time at the courthouse--8 years--prosecuting cases. I saw a lot of those people. I tried death penalty cases and spent 20 years on the bench hearing everything from stealing to killing. During that time, I saw a lot of these victims of sexual predators come to the courthouse. Many of them during that time seemed, after the crimes were over, to have sort of lost their way. They tried. They tried to recover. They tried to recruit their dignity, but they didn't. I even had victims, years after those cases were over with, call me and try to get other bearings in their lives. Some, unfortunately, even committed suicide based upon those sexual crimes committed against them by sexual predators. Society needs to understand that these real people have real emotional problems.

But, Madam Speaker, there is a rogue judge loose who is out of touch with victims. He seems to be a judge who is very sympathetic to the criminal who commits sexual predator crimes. Let me give you some examples.

In the State of Connecticut, that State passed a version of Megan's Law which requires sexual offenders to register after they're convicted. This Federal judge said, Ah, that's unconstitutional because, as he said, "It stigmatizes the sex offenders." In other words, it hurts their little feelings that they have to register on a sexual database. It seems to me that he was a criminal sympathizer, but the United States Supreme Court unanimously overruled the Federal judge and said his actions were wrong; they were in violation of the Constitution and were in poor judgment.

The same judge consistently reduced the sentences of defendants who were connected to crimes regarding child pornography, and he made excuses for these offenders. He said, Well, it's not really their fault. They had bad childhoods.

You know, I was on the bench a long time. I heard a lot of excuses, and this was one of them.

He also said, Well, it wasn't really their fault. They had addictions.

This one I like the best. He said, Well, it's not really their fault because they had posttraumatic stress because of the fact they were being prosecuted and people knew about it.

Well, yeah. Of course. Hopefully, they had some kind of reaction in that they felt like they were being insulted by being prosecuted. It's kind of like those folks in California, the Menendez brothers, who killed their parents and then complained to the judge that they should get sympathy and compassion because they were now orphans. That's what the judge sort of says in these cases.

He also, in those types of cases, reduced the convictions of sex tourism. Those are the guys, the deviates, who get on the Internet and lure girls to have sex with them. He reduced those sentences, saying, Well, they're generally law-abiding citizens.

That's not all.

In the famous case of the Roadside Strangler in Connecticut, Michael Ross, here is the kind of guy he was. He kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered eight women in Connecticut. He is tried by jury. The jury gives him the death penalty--yes, even in Connecticut. This was in 1987. Finally, the day of reckoning came in 2004. He is supposed to get executed, and this Federal judge intervenes in this case. The judge excused the killer because he suffered, according to what the judge said, from a disorder of sexual sadism.

What is that? In other words, because of the perversion, he should have a defense? Of course, that is not a legal defense in any court in the country. But the Federal judge said he should be excused from that conduct. So the judge made up a defense for the individual, stayed the execution for a long time, in spite of the jury's verdict that the person should get the death penalty; in spite of the fact that Michael Ross said, If I didn't get caught by the police, I would do it again; in spite of the fact that Michael Ross told the media that he should be executed for the sake of the families. The Supreme Court, rightfully so, overruled the judge, withdrew the stay, and ordered Michael Ross to be executed, and he met his maker in 2005.

And now this judge, Robert Chatigny, is to be appointed to the Federal Court of Appeals at the second circuit appellate court. This judge lacks judgment. This judge doesn't follow the law. This judge is apparently biased in favor of sexual predators. This judge places his personal opinions above the law. And this judge should be in the Judges Hall of Shame, not on the appellate court of the United States hearing cases. The Senate should not confirm this person to be an appellate judge in the United States.